Meeting documents

Local Access Forum
Thursday 18 March 2010

ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD

LOCAL ACCESS FORUM MEETING MINUTES

18 March 2010


ATTENDANCE LIST


NameInterest area
Peter ThornChairman, Land Management
Guy BadmanCycling, SUSTRANS
Councillor BeerWalking, Cycling
Margaret BowderyWalking
Mike BrutonDisabled Ramblers
Margaret CubleyBisham Parish Council
Hilary EssenWalking
John FoulgerWalking
Christine GaddWalking, Cycling
Harry HancockWalking, Open Spaces
Councillor MajeedRBWM Councillor
Christopher WestacottLand Management
Andrew FletcherLocal Access Forum Secretary
Gordon OliverPrincipal Transport Policy Officer
Tanya LeftwichClerk to the Forum

APOLOGIES

Name
Councillor Stretton
Dorothy Allard
Loren Eldred
Helen Howard

OBSERVERS

Name
Raymond Sharp – Mid and West Berkshire LAF
ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
LOCAL ACCESS FORUM
18 March 2010
MINUTES

ACTION
1Welcome, Apologies and Introductions, Declarations of Interest
Peter Thorn welcomed everyone to the twenty-first meeting of the Local Access Forum.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor Stretton, Dorothy
Allard, Loren Eldred and Helen Howard.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

The Forum approved the minutes of the previous meeting held on 1 December 2009 subject to the following changes:
    Ø Page 5 - To read “Andrew Fletcher confirmed that the Hedgerow leaflet would appear in the January edition of the Around the Royal Borough newsletter.
    Ø Page 8 – To read “Margaret Bowdery felt that the LAF information needed to be put on display in the Desborough corridor to alert LAF members and help generate new interest. It was suggested that the LAF information be displayed in the Town Hall at all other times.
2Local Transport Plan 3 Stakeholder Consultation
Gordon Oliver consulted the Forum on the key transport issues, challenges and potential solutions for the Local Transport Plan.

Members were informed that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) set out the Council’s approach to improving transport networks and services within the Royal Borough, as well as identifying how sub-regional transport issues would be addressed in partnership with neighbouring authorities and other agencies. It was noted that in common with most other local transport authorities in the South East Region, the Royal Borough were proposing to move from the current scenario of a five year strategy and implementation plan to a 15 year strategy supported by a series of 3 year implementation plans. Gordon Oliver went onto explain that this would enable the Transport Policy and Implementation Group to develop a long-term strategy with timescales that were consistent with the South East Plan and would help to ensure that the transport strategy could be properly integrated with the emerging Local Development Framework. Members noted that the three year implementation plans would coincide with the timeframe for the Government’s LTP allocations and would enable the Transport Policy and Implementation Group to plan both capital and revenue investment with greater clarity, whilst remaining sufficiently flexible to respond to changing circumstances.

Gordon Oliver informed members that it was proposed that the strategy and implementation plan would be closely monitored, to ensure that the Transport Policy and Implementation Group remained on track to deliver LTP objectives and targets, with regular reports to ensure that the public and stakeholders were kept informed of progress. It was noted that as a first step, the Transport Policy and Implementation Group needed to agree on the key transport issues facing the Borough, both now and in the future. Members were informed that the Transport Policy and Implementation Group then needed to agree on what a sustainable transport system in the Royal Borough would be like, and what it was expected to deliver. Gordon Oliver went on to explain that consideration of these factors would help the Transport Policy and Implementation Group to develop a long-term strategy that would best meet the needs of the area and would derive maximum value for money from related investment programmes.

Members were informed that as part of this process, the Transport Policy and Implementation Group were seeking input from all of our partners and stakeholders. It was noted that 3258 responses had to date been received from residents of the Royal Borough which had helped indicate where residents interests lay and the areas they would like concentrated on. A summary of responses was available on request from the Principal Transport Policy Officer (Gordon Oliver) along with the Rights of Way LTP.

The views of the Local Access Forum were requested on the following areas:
    · How does the Forum envisage the PRoW network supporting the wider LTP priorities?
        Ø climate change,
        Ø economic growth,
        Ø access to services,
        Ø road safety & personal security,
        Ø quality of life
    · How does the Forum see the PRoW being linked to other LTP Programmes (e.g. Safer Routes to School, Walking, Cycling, Public Transport, Road Safety, etc)?

    · In general terms, what are the Forum’s top priorities and aspirations for Public Rights of Way in the short, medium and long-term?
        Ø New routes / completion of missing links
        Ø Adoption of permitted paths / resolving landowner issues
        Ø Upgrading existing routes
        Ø Creating more accessible routes
        Ø Promotion / information
    · What are the Forum’s top priorities for each of the following areas looking at first three year period of LTP3?
        Ø Maidenhead
        Ø Windsor
        Ø Ascot / Sunninghill / Sunningdale
        Ø The Rural Wards (can sub-divide into Bisham and Cookham, Hurley and the Walthams, Bray and the eastern wards)
    · Identification of funding sources / delivery partners.

    · Appropriate performance monitoring mechanisms.

The Forum were requested to break into workshop groups and consider the above factors, to which the following points were raised:
    · More utilitarian paths in order to encourage reduced car usage, better security by widening paths and cycle routes, linkage of local shops to the Town Centre, to improve existing paths by using improved path surfacing and to provide seating along routes.
    · Footpaths for economic use to encourage an increase in walking and commuting to work. To improve specific signage, eco-friendly lighting (possibly the use of sensors in residential areas and in company buildings) and surface width. To improve the general quality of ‘urban’ footpaths.
    · Top priorities were felt to be safer routes to schools to help lower KSI figures, parking to encourage recreation and utility (possibly via a park and walk), the repair of roads to stop people parking on roads, traffic management (by one-way routes and by blocking roads to improve congested areas) and by linking footpaths, bridleways and cycle ways.
    · National Cycle Network promotion, links to schools (for example Charters), direct cycle routes/quieter routes, improved disabled access (ramps and dropped kerbs), by tackling rat-runs, by distinguishing between utility and recreational routes, create links to Town Centres and Business Parks, potential conflicts between users, increased utility routes across the Royal Borough (for example across the Town Moor), by following desire lines, by connecting the South of the Royal Borough to Windsor and by joining groups in the cycle network.
    · With regard to funding sources / delivery partners – it was noted that LTP, S106 and RBWM funds have been used in the past to deliver the capital programme. Gordon Oliver informed Members that the Royal Borough had £200,000 to improve the Eton to Dorney route for the Olympics. It was hoped that landowners would allow routes to become public rights of way during this time. Links to school funding (match funding), Primary Care Trust, Natural England / National Trails, Department for Transport (Urban Challenge Fund), Crossrail (cycle racks at the train stations be improved), Defra funding and the Environmental Agency.
    · Issues and constraints were felt to be funding, conflicts between users, landowner support, changing peoples attitudes, space constraints, education / promotion (with regard to the footpath network), road improvements with unintended consequences, security for bikes. Resolutions were suggested by making cycle ramps more obvious to encourage people to cycle, lighting, employers could provide facilities in which employees could change and shower to encourage cycling to work, communication / early engagement.
    · It was suggested that ways to monitor success could be by using cycle and footpath counters, satisfaction surveys/user feedback, reduction in traffic (cars and foot traffic), via Parish Councils, school travel surveys and work place surveys.
Gordon Oliver concluded by explaining that he would use the Forum’s responses to help inform the production of a draft Local Transport Plan in Autumn 2010, when members would have a further opportunity to comment.
Gordon Oliver
3Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Local Access Forum was to be advised in due course.

The meeting which started at 6.30pm, ended at 8pm.